English 101

Thesis-ish

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:13:40 -0400

Many don’t realize or grasp the idea that dying is certain and therefore end up living a life they are not actually pleased with. As Kurosawa warned, through his film Ikiru, “life is brief”. Kurosawa’s film should be understood as meaning that since life is so short, we should not take it for granted but instead do what makes us proud. This is important because at the end of the day, when it all comes down to it, we only have one life.

marcomazzoni: hummingbirds’s nest on my moleskine…

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:12:01 -0400

marcomazzoni:

hummingbirds’s nest on my moleskine…

Heed his warning!

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:44:00 -0400

In my previous post, I seemed to share most of my thoughts about the movie and what it was I felt Kurosawa’s purpose was for making the film. After finishing the movie, most of my ideas are the same but there are some revisions.

I am arguing that Kurosawa’s “Ikiru” should be understood as a sort of warning to remind us of the fact that “life is brief” which is important because when it comes time to die, one should readily be able to accept their fate and not have to worry about “correcting” their life.

Death likes to creep up on its victims and if you live your life worried about materialistic things, you wont be ready to leave this earth when your time comes. He tries to show us that you cannot wait until the last minute to live a life of happiness and fulfillment. I feel that although this is his message, he ends it in a way that will leave his audience thinking even more. Instead of just saying “Okay, I see the light, I’m going to live my life right.” he wants the reader to really take action. He shows the asian worker stand up to his co-workers but seemingly defeated, the worker sits back down and buries himself back under loads of papers allowing the building to return to their original routine before Watanabe’s death. In ending this way I think his purpose was to show how it is so easy to say something after a epiphany such as this one but the real challenge is actually breaking the cycle and living out ones ideologies.

"Did you know that for pretty much the entire history of the human species, the average life span was..."

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:12:55 -0400

“Did you know that for pretty much the entire history of the human species, the average life span was less than thirty years? You could count on ten years or so of real adulthood, right? There was no planning for retirement, There was no planning for a career. There was no planning. No time for plannning. No time for a future. But then the life spans started getting longer, and people started having more and more future. And now life has become the future. Every moment of your life is lived for the future—you go to high school so you can go to college so you can get a good job so you can get a nice house so you can afford to send your kids to college so they can get a good job so they can get a nice house so they can afford to send their kids to college.”

- John Green, Paper Towns

(The rest of the full quote)

Death: The only way to scare the life back to life

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:12:00 -0400

“…Every moment of your life is lived for the future—you go to high school so you can go to college so you can get a good job so you can get a nice house so you can afford to send your kids to college so they can get a good job so they can get a nice house so they can afford to send their kids to college.” -John Green

It seems, the only way one can really make an effort to living the way they want to is when they are faced with death. Even us in today’s world live like this. Everyone is so busy planning for their futures they loose light of the true meaning of life. If someone gets sick or gets hit by a car or has any sort of near death experience do they decide to make life a priority. Before this many live as Watanabe, a zombie who only lived to “pass the time”.

Ikiru, as many have mentioned seems to be directly related to Ivan Ilyich. Both protagonists are caught up in their lives material wise they never look at the true values and meaning of their life until its too late. It is only when Watanabe is faced with stomach cancer that he decides to look at the life he’s lived.When he realizes his life has been cut short unexpectedly, he tried to spend a large amount of Yen. He goes out, drinks, buy new things, has fun and in the morning goes out again with his former coworker. He tires to stick to Toyo, a young wormen who is “so incredibly alive”.

I think Kurosawa’s intention of Ikiru was to show us that you cannot wait until the last minute to live a life of happiness. Life should never be put second behind work or money or housing. Death comes knocking when you least expect it. When it does, you don’t want to be in the same boat as Watanabe or Ivan Ilyich, regretting your whole life, using the last few days and weeks to search for your life’s true meaning. Kurosawa wants the audience to realize that “life is brief” as he says in the song Watanabe sings. Life is brief and therefore not a second should be wasted.

Kurosawa shows this through a juxtaposition in his characters throughout the movie. He places Watanabe and Toyo together majority of the movie in order to emphasize his message. She knew she hated her job and decided to quit whereas Watanabe worked for 30 years at the same job yet when it came time he could not remember a single significant thing he actually did. Toyo found what she life to do, build toy bunnies. She said it made her happy, like she was “playing with all the babies in Japan”. Not only this but Kurosawa shows the juxtaposition of the two when Watanabe buys the stockings for Toyo. She is so excited at reviving the gift and Watanabe seems confused as to how a mere pair of stockings can make her so happy. I think here he tries to show how Toyo is able to find happiness in the simplest of things whereas Watanabe is blinded.

Kurosawa decides to remind us of an honest fact, ”We humans don’t know how to live until death is upon us.”
In order to be above this and know “how to live” we need to know the truth.
Humans die. Life is brief.
We need to make the most of it while we have time.

Corruption in the kingdom!

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:27:25 -0400

On a different note, I found it very “wrong” (wrong in a sense that it was misjudged) I guess how the King accused money of corrupting people. In my opinion, I feel it was fear and power, not money. He was the exact example. The king would use fear and cause fear in the people of the kingdom in order to do and get what he wanted.

Antigone’s sister, Ismene, was feaful of the kings wrath and decided not to bury her brother. She, already sharing blood of a “Traitor” wanted to keep her life at all costs even if it meant going against her beliefs and leaving her brother to rot.he kings power seemed to get to his head, especially with the burial of the body. He directly went against the ways of old traditions. He builds up fear and uses it as a pivot point to expel his power. He felt because he was king all things he did were in order. In order to keep this “order” he would make sure those of the kingdom were fearful.

In addition, this idea can be seen when it comes to Sentry. Sentry was fearful of losing his life because of bringing bad news to the king. He kept saying how he has this “misfortune” and should not be punished because of it. This, though, only seemed to feed the Kings power. It provoked him to increase his power usage in order to get what he wanted. After anouncing the bad news in such a fearful manner, the king it seems, decided to exercise his power in the best way he see fit. He decided if the violator was not found, he would die. Now this seems too ridiculous, just because he brought bad news, he would be punished by death? But the king only saw this as fair. If he couldn’t get the head of a traitor he would easily replace it with someone else. It is obvious there is a direct relation of fear and power here. When his men are fearful, the King, Creon has more power to exercise and do as he please. His power though seemed to get to his head, especially with the burial of the body. He directly went against the ways of old traditions. In this sense his power is seen as corrupting but in addition to this, he was corrupt in his authority. He felt because he was king all things he did were in order.

The Disciple

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:01:41 -0400

What a strong willed young girl Antigone is. Not only had she defied the King’s orders but she went against the pleads of her sister and buried hr dead brother.

It seems Antigone and Socrates have a lost in common. As with Socrates, Antigone believes in trusting the Gods over the King. Sure death may be the punishment because of this but for these two death is nothing to fear. “Nor did I think a mere mortal man could override the gods, the great unwritten, unshakable tradition” (Antigone 503-505). Like Antigone, Socrates felt the same. Had Socrates’s been forced to never practice philosophy as punishment, he directly said he’d disobey immediately for it would go against the intentions of the Gods. If death come so be it, he would die for a noble and worthy cause. Antigone, too, even said “Die I must, I’ve known it all my life. To die before my time, I consider that a gain”(Antigone 512, 515). She and Socrates had the same idea and the same consequence (I think, Antigone might not die but now that is what he fate looks like). I wonder if antigone will hold other beliefs that Socrates had too? We already saw she followed orders of higher, religious beings over that of mortal rulers, and that she was fearless of death, but are there others? I guess only time would tell but as of now, she seems as if she were one of Socrates’s disciples.

The words of a wise man.

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:36:27 -0400

Every century has its handful of exceptional amazing leaders.
Having just seen one of these famous leaders speak yesterday, listening to Martin Luther King’s speech was inspirational.
His speech made me want to applaud in the middle of class. What stood out most to me was the analogies he used. He compared history to a panoramic picture. Not only was I able to visualize history this way but I was able to actually see him there in the time period.
I think another way he was able to capture my attention was by his continual use of the “we”. It just brought about a sense of unity. It made me feel as if it wasn’t just his idea but my own too. I know, had I been in the crowd at the time I would have readily joined him in this battle.
Another morbid sort of thought I guess was how King said he would be okay with dying. It seemed kind like he was preparing to die. It was both an inspirational part of his speech but a creepy one as well. I felt when King described how he reached the top and was able to see over to the “Promised Land” he was able to paint the most inspirational picture I could ever imagine. I think it was sort of foreshadowing too. When I read it I sort of felt scared for him since the way he stated it seemed so confident. (For the superstitious, it would’ve been a “knock on wood” moment.)
After the speech was over I felt inspired. His repetition and analogies really pulled me in. I don’t think he could’ve done a better job in giving this speech at all.

For my "opponents"

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:40:44 -0400

Even though the views of my peers may seem right, I offer a different definition of courage. I am arguing that courage involves rising to a certain challenge, but is not necessarily doing what one feels is morally correct, which is important because it helps me to explain how courageous Tim O’Brien actually was. Tim was not just a coward; he was courageous even when his actions questioned his morals.

"No matter what we do we'll be wrong."

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 00:17:52 -0400

Courage can be derived from many places, coming in multiple forms and figures. Courage involves consciousness, it is not mere stupid actions but it is mustered up. Sometimes courage means just being able to get through the day that lays ahead, other times it means speaking up for what you believe in but overall courage is the ability to overcome or rise up to a certain challenge or obstacle whatever it may be. Unlike my peers, I feel courage does not always necessarily mean you are doing what you feel is right. Of course it takes time to think through ones decisions on which they choose to be courageous about but it does not mean what they are doing is still not courageous. Courage is cautiously doing something you are not readily comfortable with. Both “If I die in a Combat Zone” and “Laches” offer great definitions of courage that together convey and even stronger sense of the definition the one I spoke of beforehand.

According to Jordan, courage is “the ability of using wisdom and knowledge to make accurate decisions in overcoming fears and conquering cowardly actions”. I see this can be a valid point but there are still a number of flaws in it. Knowledge can make for better decisions but it does not always lead to courageous actions. I disagree with the idea that courage is the ability to make “accurate decisions” and “preventions of cowardly actions” but I do on the other hand agree with the idea that courage can help one overcome fear. O’Brien exemplifies this in a number of ways throughout the text. In addition, as Oscar pointed out, some peers believed courage dealt with morals and standing up for certain beliefs. I disagree with these peers because O’Brien, although not able to completely stand up for all he believed in, was still able to show courage in his actions. It seems in this definition, anything O’Brien does is completely wrong. Nothing he does is justified and he receives no note of being courageous anywhere throughout the book.

I additionally, agree with Jada’s definition of courage, “mental strength in hardships.” This I feel is one of the more accurate definitions of courage because it can be compared with different situations and still hold true. This can be seen in a number of places throughout O’Brien’s novel. Some of the more dominant areas being on page 56 where O’Brien argues for what he thinks is right. Additionally, this can be seen on page 81 when describing Mad Mark. Finally, this can be viewd on pages 68 and 121 when O’Brien shares his internal conflict and what he would like to do over what he did do. Finally, this can be viewed in “Laches” work as well when “Laches” says “courage is when a man is willing to stay at his post. ( E 675). Additionally, on 192 C I agree with the definitions, as some of my peers that courage is “a sort of endurance of the soul”. At o193 A Socrates relates Laches definition of courage to something similar to O’Brien.

Everything went numb...

Fri, 20 Jul 2012 02:03:09 -0400

At this point, O’brian is lost. Completely lost and loosing vigor. Everything is “beginning not to matter” (O’Brian 121)he states as hes told to “get his sh*t together”. It is relevant that a change is beginning to form. The once vigilant man is now becoming exactly what he complained about a month or so earlier. He was turning careless and numb, not only about his life but about the lives of others. After seeing so many men go I think he may see it as only a matter of time before its his own turn so this change is not too surprising. As the reading continues, Tim is only seen as growing more bitter, trying to find more ways to cope with living in Pinkville.
One of the most distressing times for Tim, I think, was when the three old men were captured. Not only was it hard for himself, but it became apparent that not all of Alpha team was heartless, another solider felt the same as Tim. “I’d like to cut him loose right now,” Bates said (O’Brian 131).

On top of all this, it is very noticeable that Tim’s morale is changing when he speaks so lowly of himself. ”Was my apparent courage in enduring merely a well disguised cowardice?…was he ignoring his son’s failure..?” (O’brian 139) questions Tim as he thinks about his own endurance after quoting Plato. Plato leaves him thinking wondering whether his courage was courage at all. He continues and says, “courage is more than the charge.” (141) Here I think he makes a good point. courage is not just about the apparent charge into battle but also how one acts while in battle and how one cleans up and comes out of battle. He finishes with ,” You promise, almost moving your lips, to do better next time; that by itself is a kind of courage” (147). As he says this, he looks around at his fellow peers. “The fight dies the same way Novocaine wears off in the dentists chair,” (148). The fight numbs them for a few minutes but once is gone, their Novicane dies and they are left yet again in pain trudging on. He ends with the previous lines I think to emphasis the pain it takes them to continue moving forward. They must battle not only the enemy, but their morals, values, decisions concise, etc. The hurt comes back and all they can say is ill do better next time.

Mad as a hatter.

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:09:01 -0400

Mad Mark in the house!….Just kidding!
One of the other things that caught my attention while reading, was how much Tim focused on “Mad Mark”. I found it strange how men in Alpha refereed to him as “mad” yet he was anything but. He wasn’t reckless or careless but professional and apparently, from what he portrayed, fearless. He knew his job and got it done and did it well. I like how Mad Mark was described as “insanely calm” (O’Brian 81). At first, I questioned whether this made sense but after looking at the situation I understood what he meant. Your a foot solider, in Vietnam, in the middle of war and you are incredibly calm, something doesn’t seem right. Thus, I decided his name fits. He described Mark as having the perfect blend of “courage”, “self confidence” and “skill”. (It makes you question whether all army men have this potential or just a select handful.)

As i continued reading, I began wondering whether Mark supported the war or not? He was described as very professional is described as doing “what was necessary, necessary for an officer, platoon leader in war; he did no more or no less,” (82). I realized quickly that his professionalism seemed to parallel that of Tim. Although Tim was new and was scared, he still acted as if his job were purposeful even if he didn’t believe in its purpose. Instead of being careless and lazy as the other soldiers, O’Brian made an effort. So, again this leads me to question mark and whether he supports the war or not. Due to his professionalism and his doing only what was necessary, it seems he does not support the war, yet he is also noted for slicing off a Vietcong’s ear (83), which helps support the idea that he is supportive of the war. Maybe this is an obvious question, or maybe its not, but I am still pondering it and hope it is answered in the next few chapters.

(Another side question/comment: I wonder, do you think Tim could ever turn out like Mad Mark?)

Every man for himself

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:05:00 -0400

As I was reading, I was astonished at how careless some of these men were with their lives. During Tim’s first night the Alpha team was attacked in the dead of night. Bullets spraying everywhere but the Alpha team was no where to be found. Actually, they were sound asleep! Their base was being attacked and most wanted to sleep through it. I thought this was pretty strange. I mean, even if as one of the members said, “That was a picnic last night.” ( O’Brian 77). Sure it may not have been the most gun fire those men have seen but still, its gun fire! Not only at the base are they careless but O’Brian points out how careless they are even when they are out in the open.

I thought this was interesting but stupid, how Reno was so selfish. He could careless about the well being of others yet expected them to have his back 100%. He shows this a number of times. Once on page 92 where he lights a cigarette, again when he forces Tim to wake ten minutes early from his hour nap, and again when he is found sleeping while on night watch duty. Above all this, the saddest part of the scenario, was as tim pointed out, Reno was a squad leader. Not only could he not keep awake or follow rules and regulations, but Reno didn’t even know which direction to keep watching while on duty, Instead of looking at his assigned post, he faced a pile of bushes! This is the man who is supposed to give orders and protect his men. O’Brian is not to blame for haing bitter feelings toward him.

The last thing that captured my attention while reading was the way

Walking in circles.

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0400

As Oscartama pointed out, not only did we as a class have a rough time defining courage, but Socrates, Nicias and Laches did as well. Each definition, Nicias or Laches offered, Socrates would counter it or prove a situation where something lacking courage would be seen, by definition, courageous. I found this interesting because the same thing that happened to them, would happen to us. After reading Laches and from personal experience, I feel there is no concrete definition of courage. The reader, the student, the teacher, anyone searching for a solid defintion of courage, is then left roaming around walking in circles. The possibilities for definitions are endless and there is not “Right” answer. The dictionary offers the definition, “the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, etc. without fear”. Yet this definition is subject to change. (If this definition is used to describe Tim, then it is clear he in fact is courageous as opposed to what my other classmates believed. ) But back to Laches. Laches believes courage is “a man willing to remain at his post and to defend himself against the enemy without running away” while Nicias believes a man who is courageous is wise. Neither definition it seems, is exactly what Socrates is looking for. One of the end ing lines Socrates says is, “Why then should anybody choose one of us in preference of another?” I think this relates to the definition of courage that everyone is searching for. Although almost all definitions contradict themselves, what makes one definition right over the other? All are correct, to an extent, dependent upon the situation, and whatever other factors may exist. So, in closing, I think not everyone’s definition of courage is right nor is wrong but should all be received equally and taken into account.

Your too smart for your own good!

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:15:33 -0400

If I Die In a Combat Zone ”box me up and ship me home”. I thought it was unique how to author made the title out of one of the chants soldiers would sing while in Vietnam.

Going into the book, I already knew my views about war, politics etc. I am a pretty patriotic person and therefore believe that one should serve their country. After reading, i initially believed Tim O’Brian to be a coward as “glenishaaa” stated when O’Brian contemplates desertion. As I continued reading though, my views began to change. I really sympathized with O’Brian when on page 56 he says, “my real problem is of conscious and philosophy and intellect and emotion and fear and a physical hurt and desire to be good, and also, underneath, a desire to prove myself a hero,”. After reading this I saw Tim was not a coward but an intellectual. The part that really struck me was when he said he wanted to be “good” and also “prove himself a hero”. In saying so, one can see he is struggling internally with the decisions he thinks about making. He clearly will not do things blindly, such as go to war and kill, but instead will do whatever he he feels is right, even if this means going against his superiors. I found it interesting when the chaplain said, “See…you’ve read too many books, the wrong ones,” (57). I hated this line. I found it so naive. There is no such thing as reading too many books or “wrong books” for that matter. Because of this, it made me loose respect for the chaplain since he promotes ignorance in his men. He rather then be uneducated or only partially informed/ educated. After reading this, I started agreeing more with O’Brian than I had before.

I found this courageous and admirable since it would be such a hard thing to do. On top of that, I admire the fact that he’s not just avoiding war because he is scared but because he has actual moral reasons. His values are held in high esteem and he does all he can to follow them,which again I find admirable.
After reading, some of my own views on war have changed. Tim O’Brian had me thinking of things that never crossed my mind.

Baby Brother

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:15:00 -0400

While reading the first few chapters, I noticed I loved the way the narrator characterized his peers who were in the same infantry as he. Specifically, Barney. When O’Brian describes Barney talking he usually describes him by saying, “giggled” or “kid”. He even says, “he had the completion of a baby brother. Tickle him and he cooed” (O’Brian 8). Barney is also characterized by have this halo of optimism surrounding him. He is always so eager to go to war, be in combat, defeat the Vietcong. I thought it was interesting how he WANTED to find the holes left in the ground. Sure it would mean their mission was accomplished, but why would you want to walk straight into battle if it means you could very easily loose your life? This sort of makes me worry for Barney. I fear, (I say fear because within these few pages I’ve grown to like Barney and see him as a little kid filled with ignorance.) something will happen to Barney like he will get shot and die or something. I don’t know if it will happen but considering how Barney is portrayed I would surely bet on it.

But he told me to do it!

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 01:46:09 -0400

As seen through various works of literate and even in daily life, influence is everywhere, from the food you eat, to the music you listen to, to what you watch, but more obviously from those around you. Because influence is omnipresent, it is difficult to gauge who someone is. Therefore, no matter how strong one’s mind is, the influence of others ultimately can corrupt one’s actions into revealing a false self image of who that someone is as a person. Tolstoy’s A Death of Ivan Ilyich, Plato’s dialogue “The Apology”, and Stanley Milgram’s experiment of obedience, all highly exemplify just how strong a single influence can be on someone and their actions, ultimately creating them into a person they are not.

“The death of Ivan Ilyich” by Leo Tolstoy is a tragic tale of a man who lived a sort of lie of a life. He went about doing what he was supposed to do in order to not be a failure or not be a simple common man. He strove for greatness. While on his quest for success, he ended up buying a home, marrying his wife, having children, and obtaining a steady career. Having an insatiable appetite for money and moving up in the world, he ended up severing his relationships with his wife, children and friends. Ivan, too caught up on the influence of society, lost sight early on of what it was that was important to him. Tolstoy makes it clear that societies influence was overpowering when he mentions that, “it was as with people who want to assemble the rich, and for that reason only resemble each other,” (Tolstoy, 57). In saying this the author proves the influence of society on its people, showing how all have a certain status quo to aim for. With this in mind all his life, Ivan becomes easily bored and is filled with, “unbearable anguish” (54), resulting in his neverending appetite for “success”. It becomes relevant that this influence changes who Ivan was as a person because in order to find a memory of pure joy, he must search all the way back to his childhood. It becomes clear to Ivan that, “he had not lived his life as he should have,” (88). He trurly began realizing the life influenced upon him was “not right. His work, his living conditions, and his faimily and these social and professional interests -all might have been not right,” (88)…..To be continued.

Let me be or let me die

Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:36:45 -0400

In my previous post I skipped over majority of the beginning of “The Apology” focusing more on the second half of the dialogue. In doing so I didn’t talk about much of what was discussed in class. After having our class discussion, I gained new insight into Socrates such as what his mission is and what he cares about and loves.
To me it was obvious that his true passion was philosophy. He says to the courts, “As long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy,” (34). He states that even if the punishment or practicing philosophy would be death, he would still do it. This also ties in to Socrates and his obedience. When he mentions this he also mentions that he would be more obedient to the gods over that of the council men. Looking at it like this, it is apparent that Socrates is both obedient and disobedient at the same time. He disobeys the commands of man and listens to the Gods, for they are what is right.

Through saying this, a few parallels can be drawn between Socrates’s speech and Stanley Milgram’s experiment. In a way,socrates is seen as being disobedient and following his virtues when it comes to Milgrams experiment. Instead of listening to the proctor of the test, Socrates listens to himself and to the God’s. He chosses diliberatly to practice philosophy and question those who think they are wise when in fact they really are not. This causes him to be disliked by many people of the city, especially the “wise”. Usually one would stop doing whatever it is they were doing that caused fellow citizens to not like them but socrates follows what he loves and believes in. That is he believes that all men’s knowledge is worthless, “The man among you mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates, understands that his wisdom is worthless,” (27). This parallel is a bit hard to see so lets take it to a less literal level.

So, Milgrams experiment allowed us to see how men would obey, respect or listen to authority and how far they would obey. Socrates’s dialogue shows how Socrates was a very disliked man and would make others question and ultimately doubt their own wisdom. He would constantly question men into making them contradict themselves. He did this not to try and make himself seem wisest but he did so in order to prove a point that all men know is nothing at all; those who think they know everything, really know nothing. Now, connecting this to Milgram’s experiment, it can be seen that Socrates did not really obey authority at all. He questioned and question authority, the wise, until he proved them wrong. By doing so, it displays his disobedience yet on another not shows his obedience to the authority of his “god”. He directly obey’s god by by trying to find those who think they are wise and attempts to prove them wrong. Socrates say’s when he finds a man who he feels isn’t wise he assists the god and “show[s] him that he is not” (27). In this sense he is just as obedient as he is disobedient.

Sugar and Salt

Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:11:00 -0400

Plato’s “Apology”, I feel was a perfect text to read after just having finished The Death of Ivan Ilyich. It creates a completely different idea about the meaning of death. “Apology” was a speech given by Socrates while on trial; the text itself was reworded by Plato who was present at the trial. In the speech, Socrates explains how the charges put against him (not believing in a god, corrupting the young civilians, and making the worse into the stronger argument) is false (23). He argues against these accusations by asking questions to Meletus (the accuser) in order to get him to contradict himself. As the trial goes on, Socrates continues trying to convince the jury of his innocence, not with pity but with wisdom and deductive reasoning. Unfortunately, Socrates’s arguments are not strong enough and he is found guilty, ultimately sentenced to death.

“Apology” really got me thinking; it was a great comparison to Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich in that it brought about many contrasts.

One of the lines that stood out most to me while reading the speech was when Socrates said,”Do you think I would have survived all of these years if I were engaged in public affairs…” (17). Immediately this caught my attention because Ivan Ilyich did exactly this. Ivan spent as much time as he could dealing with public affairs, exclusively the court room, while his polar opposite, Socrates, stayed as far away from there as possible. Both died but both lived drastically different lives. Socrates gave up almost all his worldly possesions, lived in poverty, spoke his mind, went against socitey’s norms, strayed from politics, and discussed philosophy. He even says he,”neglected what occupies most people: wealth, household affairs, the position of general or public orator or the other offices, the political clubs, and the factions that exist,” (40). Again, Ivan is seen doing all the things Socrates did not.

Another section where a huge contrast occurs is on page 34 Socrates says, “…he attaches little importance to the most important things and greater importance to inferior things,” Further down the page he continues and says, “Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively.” I found these contrasts to be important due to the fact that both are significant when discussing Ivan’s story. For example, in Tolstoy’s work, Ivan does exactly as Socrates describes and attaches the utmost importance to the most minute things and leaves the most important parts of life, such as family, friends, love passion, etc. to sit and collect dust. As seen in the story, this leads to Ivan’s “successful” but meaningless life, which he [Ivan] realizes a little to late. The second comparison again relates to Ivan in that Ivan proves Socrates’s idea as correct. Ivan attracts wealth, but as he realizes in the end of the short story, his wealth means absolutely nothing. His life goal of constantly moving up in life, achieving the most roubles, and acquiring the best stuff, made his life everything but excellent, for both himself and his family. In fact, it set up his family for demise. Because of his actions and his belief that wealth was success, he ended up hating his family through out the span of his life since their virtues were that of his, corrupt and materialistic.

Finally, (I know this is a lot, but bear with me) this leads to the topic at the end of both texts; death. When it comes to death, just as with their lives, they were, you guessed it, absolutely different! When Ivan knew he was dying, he hated those who lied to his face and gave him no pity. He was extremely edgy and panicky about death. he didn’t want it to come; he wanted to live. After realizing his live was a lie he was so disappointed in himself that he felt it was not right for him to leave this earth without fixing his damaged life. He found some reconciliation just before he took his last breaths when his son kissed his hand but it is hard to tell if this was sufficient. Socrates on the other hand had a whole different perspective. When informed he would be receiving the death penalty, he did not burst into tears nor did he beg for his life. It’s not to say he was okay with dying but that he was…satisfied with the life he had lived. Socrates had lived his life as he pleased, doing what he loved. He states, “I go to die. you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one , except the gods,” (44). In saying this, one could hear the hope in his voice, the optimism that being dead would be better than being on the earth. He gives us the feeling that there are bigger and better things to come after death and since his life on the earth was lived to its full potential, he was complacent with leaving. Because his life wasn’t concerned with pleasing others, or conforming to society as Ivan Ilyich’s he was able to leave the earth with no regrets, drastically different form the way Ivan left the world.

In response to oscartama.

Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:38:54 -0400

For the most part I agree with his post, yet the last part I view as completely different. Oscar describes the society as the one shocking people and Ivan as the one being shocked. I see it as Ivan being the one inducing the pain and those around him receiving the shock. This makes more sense to me because Ivan is seen as respecting authority and following society’s commands and therefore can directly relate to the “teacher” in Milgram’s experiment. He knows some of what he does goes against his own morals, or more correctly, he realizes this while on his death bed yet he is not able to resist and continues. Since he is obedient to society’s demands, even unknowingly, he can be classified as the “teacher” of the experiment. Those around him receive the consequences of his obedience, such as his wife, children and coworkers. To his wife and kids he may seem distant and to his coworkers he may be seen as insatiable due to the fact that he’s always trying to move up. In this way, it can be argued that those around him are receiving the shock stemming from Ivan’s obedience to society.